Lords Sitting of 18 June 1883

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—New Forest Highways* (101); Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 7) * (102); Local Government Provisional Orders (Highways)* (103); Tramways Provisional Orders (No. 4) * (104).
,Second Reading—Pier and Harbour Provisional Order (No. 2)* (82); Criminal Law Amendment (69); Indian Marine (88).
Committee— Report— Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (No. 3)* (81).
Royal Assent—Consolidated Fund (No. 3) [46 Vict. c. 13]; Prevention of Crime (Ireland) Act (1882) Amendment (Audience of Solicitors) [46 Vict. c. 12]; Poor Law Conferences [46 Vict. c. 11]; Constabulary and Police (Ireland) [46 Viet. c. 14]; Lands Clauses (Umpire) [46 Vict. c. 15]; Broughty Ferry Paving [46 Vict. c. xix]; Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation [46 Vict. c. xviii]; Drainage and Improvement of Lands Supplemental (Ireland) [46 Vict. c. xxi]; Tramways Order (Dublin and Blessing-ton) Confirmation [46 Vict. c. xxx]; Local Government Board (Ireland) Provisional Orders Confirmation (Rathmines, &c.) [46 Vict. c. xl]; Education Department Provisional Orders Confirmation (Cummersdale, &c.) [46 Vict. c. xlii].

PARLIAMENT—POLICY OF THE MINISTRY—MR. CHAMBERLAIN'S SPEECH AT BIRMINGHAM.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, seeing the noble Earl (Earl Granville) in his place, I wish to ask him a Question on a matter of some public interest—namely, Whether the intimations of policy that were given by Mr. Chamberlain, President of the Board of Trade, at Birmingham, last week, are to be looked upon as the views of Her Majesty's Government? The language to which I refer is reported as follows. The right hon. Gentleman begins by
  752
  saying that the House of Commons is not so Radical as the country, and not so Radical as the Government; and then, after discussing questions of representation, he ends as follews:—
  "Now, shall we put the dots on the is? What do we want? We want, in the first place, a suffrage from which no man who is not disqualified by crime or the receipt of relief, who is expected to fulfil the obligations of citizenship, should be excluded. We want equal electoral districts in order that every vote may have an equal value; and we want, I think, the payment of Members in order that any man who has the capacity to serve his country, who has honesty and intelligence, and who is selected for that purpose by his fellow-countrymen, shall not be excluded for want of means. That is what we want. What we shall get is a different matter. We may have once more to take a composition."
  Then he goes on to say that a composition will not be looked upon as a discharge. Of course, it is obvious that the plain and natural meaning of that language is that that is the policy of Her Majesty's Government; it follows so necessarily from what is stated in the rest of the speech, and the announcement is made in so uncompromising a manner, that it would be evident to anyone reading it that Mr. Chamberlain was simply doubting how much this Radical Government would get out of this Conservative House of Commons. I have ventured, using Mr. Chamberlain's own words, myself to put the dots on the i's in order that I may get—as I have no doubt I shall get from the noble Earl—the avowal of a policy which might be stated in a more formal manner, and in a more suitable locality, and which I shall be glad to have explained by the noble Earl.
  EARL. GRANVILLE: My Lords, the noble Marquess has, with his usual courtesy, given me Notice of a Question as to whether the views of Her Majesty's Government are those expressed by Mr. Chamberlain on the subject of the lowering of the franchise, and on the question of the payment of Members. I think that the same Question is to be asked by Mr. Warton in "another place," where there will be the advantage of Mr. Chamberlain's presence. I was at Birmingham myself last week; but not at the same time as Mr. Chamberlain. But I had the pleasure of seeing my right hon. Friend as soon as I received the noble Marquess's note; and he informs me of what is obvious from

  753
  the text of his speech, and from the words quoted by the noble Marquess—namely, that his statement was the expression of his own individual views, and of what he believed to be the views of his constituents. In no sense whatever was he stating those views as embodying what would be proposed as a legislative measure, by himself, or by Her Majesty's Government. I am not sure that I need give any further explanation on the subject; but, for the information of the 'noble Marquess, I will say that I myself, and the Members of the Government in this House, entirely agree with the Members of the Cabinet in the House of Commons, who have all voted in favour of getting rid of what to us is an unwise and unjust anomaly—the difference between the franchise in boroughs and counties. I believe I am right in thinking that all Members of the Cabinet agree with what is stated to be the opinion of many Members of the House of Commons, that any measure for the reduction of the franchise must be followed by a measure for the redistribution of seats. It may be a want of curiosity on my part, but I have never asked my noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack whether he is in favour of universal suffrage; I have never asked the President of the Council whether he is in favour of equal electoral districts, and I have never asked my three noble Friends behind me whether they think that Members of Parliament should be paid or should not be paid. I think this signifies less, because I expect, and indeed believe, that Her Majesty's Government, during the present Parliament, will be able to bring in a Bill or Bills on Parliamentary Reform, which will give, in the most authentic and effective manner, the views of the Government on the subject.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, as far as I understand the noble Earl, Her Majesty's Government do not themselves believe in manhood suffrage, equal electoral districts, and payment of Members; but Mr. Chamberlain believes in them in a modified way. He believes in them in Birmingham; but he does not believe in them in Downing Street. There is some difficulty, however, in realizing the divided individuality which the noble Earl attributes to Mr. Chamberlain. We have, I believe,
  754
  no precedent for it in our political history. Mr. Chamberlain, when joined with Her Majesty's Government, will repudiate manhood suffrage, will decline to vote for equal electoral districts, and will refuse payment to Members. But when he goes down to Birmingham he will vote for all these. I do not understand this plan of splitting Cabinet Ministers in two. The noble Earl gate us a specimen of that the other night. We blamed Lord Derby for announcing beforehand, on entering upon a negotiation, that he was in no case prepared to go to war. The noble Earl answered—" Oh, yes; but when you were in Office Lord Derby said the same thing on your behalf. Lord Derby stated in reference to Constantinople that in no case would England be allowed to go to war." So that in this particular case the noble Earl defended Lord Derby of the present against the attacks of his Colleagues in the past by saying that when Lord Derby was your Colleague he did the same thing. That appears to me precisely to be what has taken place in the case of Mr. Chamberlain. He talks of getting a composition. But what does he mean? He is a Member of the Government from whom the composition is to be obtained. So that Mr. Chamberlain, who is in favour of manhood suffrage, equal electoral districts, and payment of Members at Birmingham, will beat down the Government, and is kind enough to say that he will accept some composition from Mr. Chamberlain in Downing Street. But he will not admit that this is a discharge for the future. I do not think that Parliamentary annals contain precedents for this division of character. But I have seen a precedent in the case of a Predecessor of the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack, whose acts and deeds are nightly represented in a theatre in this town, and who was disposed to commit himself for a contempt of Court, because he allowed himself to make love to a ward in Chancery without obtaining his own consent. That is very much the division of character to which Mr. Chamberlain has committed himself. But while I object on Constitutional grounds to this division of Ministerial responsibility, I cannot deny that, on prudential grounds, it has its admirable side. It is delightfully safe. It is what we call hedging. He is safe against either event. He is

  755
  in the position of a man betting against his own horse. If it should happen in the future that manhood suffrage is carried it will be carried by the splendid exertions which Mr. Chamberlain, speaking as an agitator at Birmingham, has made. If it is not carried it will be repelled by the prudent Government of which Mr. Chamberlain, as President of the Board of Trade, forms a part. I should like to know whether, in the opinion of the noble Earl, this is consistent with the traditions and Constitutional usages which he has inherited? We used to imagine that on the most vital questions of the day the Ministry had one opinion; that, at all events, while they were in Office, they would support one set of opinions, and that any of them who wished to go further would not seek to gratify his desires, at any rate, until he was free from the responsibilities of Office. But now we have a wholly different doctrine. It appears that Ministers may not be agreed upon any one important matter which it is necessary that the Government of this country should consider. We had an instance of that lately in what I venture to consider is not a small matter, though it concerns a small space. We had the scandal as to the Contagious DiseasesActs, from which we are not free, and in which a Resolution against the Government in the House of Commons was carried by Members of the Government. We remember also how, at the beginning of the Session, Mr. Chamberlain announced that unless Ireland had an extension of local self-government she never would be at peace, and how Lord Harlington immediately retorted that it would be madness to extend local self-government in Ireland. And now we find, not only on the burning question of Ireland, but on questions of manhood suffrage, equal electoral districts, and the payment of Members, Her Majesty's Government are absolutely disagreed. There is no longer any pretence of a united Cabinet in the Government that rules us. Now, in the face of the Constitutional doctrine which the noble Earl and his Colleagues have adopted, I think it would be becoming in future not to speak of the Government doing this or doing that; but to say — "A fraction of the Government has resolved on this, and a fraction of the Government to which I do
  756
  not belong entertains such and such an opinion in such a case." We should then have an accurate representation of the state of things which exists in the Councils of the Government.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, as the noble Marquess put his Question first and made his speech afterwards, perhaps I may be allowed to add one word. The chief point of his speech was a comparison of Mr. Chamberlain's speech with his position in Her Majesty's Government and in the Cabinet. It appears to me that Mr. Chamberlain's position is very much like what the position of the noble Marquess was the other day when, speaking in his semiofficial capacity as Leader of the Opposition, he spoke of the desirability of retaliatory tariffs. The noble Marquess and the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Stafford Northcote) in Birmingham stated that individual predilections should be free; but neither of them, as I understand, stated that he represented the views of those with whom he is associated, and both ended by saying that the thing itself was perfectly impossible.

ARMY—CORPORAL PUNISHMENT.
  EXPLANATION.
  LORD ELLENBOROUGHsaid, he had been misinterpreted in some remarks made by him the other night on the subject of flogging. He did not advocate that corporal punishment should at once be re-introduced into the Army with the old conditions, or even, at present, under the recent limited application of it; but distinctly guarded himself from any misunderstanding by saying that he submitted that this form of punishment should only be made use of when troops were on active service, or during a state of war or tumult.
INDIA (PALCONDA).

  MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY,in rising to call the attention of the House to the case of the ex-Zemindar of Palconda, imprisoned in 1832 at the age of 11 years, and released by Lord Napier, the then Governor of Madras, from close confinement in 1869, and to the confiscated Zemindary having been farmed to a commercial firm instead of being administered by an official, and to move for a Select Committee to inquire into

  757
  his case and the confiscation of his property at a time when he was a ward of the British Court of Wards, said: My Lords, I have been told that, on the first Sunday of this month, a preacher in the Pro-Cathedral of Kensington explained to his hearers that the reason Latin was used by the Roman Church was because, Latin being a dead language, the sense of the words was not subject to change; whereas, in the vulgar tongue, words in process of time altered their meaning; and he gave, as an instance, that the English nation, which originally prayed that justice might be administered impartially, now prayed that it might be administered indifferently by our Rulers. If this preacher had known of the case which I am going to lay before your Lordships, and of the habits of the Indian Administration, he might have added that here was a proof, if any proof were wanted, of the efficacy of prayer, since the English nation has obtained that indifferent administration of justice from their Rulers which they have so long prayed for. It is with mixed feelings that I bring this subject before your Lordships; for, on the one hand, it is a most grievous case of injustice and tyranny, and, on the other hand, none of the original wrong-doers survive, and I do not believe that my noble Friend the Secretary of State for India (the Earl of Kimberley) is fully aware of the extent of that wrong. Moreover, I am thankful to the Madras Government that, under the administration of the noble Duke behind me (the Duke of Buckingham), the victim of this injustice was allowed to bring his case before the High Court of Madras, since I have, at various times, endeavoured in this House to obtain assent to the principle that cases such as this should be decided by a judicial tribunal, and not by officials, who cannot be impartial in revising their own acts, or those of their friends in the Civil Service. I will now place before your Lordships a succinct statement of the case, taken from a letter from the India Office, dated 3rd of April last. By so doing I shall save the time of the House, and narrow the points of difference between the India Office and myself.
  "On the death of Viziaram's father, his brother succeeded to the Zemindary. This. brother rebelled in 1832, was tried for rebellion
  758
  and convicted, and under Madras Regulation VII., of 1808, was sentenced to death, and the estate was ordered to be confiscated, while his family, including Viziaram, then a boy, were ordered to be detained as State prisoners. The Collector of the District proposed that, as an act of grace, the estate should be, at some future time, restored to one of the brothers. But the then Governor, Sir Frederick Adam, refused this, acting on a rule laid down by Sir Thomas Monro, in 1823, that no estate once forfeited for rebellion should ever be restored."
  With regard to this statement of the facts of the case, I would observe that Viziaram's brother did not succeed his father; but, being illegitimate, was wrongfully named successor to the Zemindary by the Collector, in spite of the protests of Viziaram's mother. Next, it was not proved that Viziaram's brother bad rebelled, or taken part in the disorders of 1832; on the contrary, the Foujdary Adalet, then the highest Court of Madras, disbelieved it; he was a minor only 19 years of age when condemned to death by a court martial. Next, with regard to the rule laid down by Sir Thomas Monro in 1823. He had no power to lay clown rules it was only an opinion of his contained in one of his Minutes, and it is called an opinion, both in Sir Frederick Adam's Minute of June, 1835, and in the Judgment of the High Court of Madras of 1879. Now, who was Sir Frederick Adam, that so much importance should be given to his administrative act in confirmation of a court martial, and against the recommendation of the Collector, or, more correctly, of Mr. Russell, the Special Commissioner? He was a man who ought never to have been appointed to the Government of Madras; for, before he was sent there, he had lest his character and reputation in the Ionian Islands, through the injustice and violations of law which prevailed during his administration of those Islands. Sir Charles Napier's book, published in 1833, mentions various cases of his maladministration; one man was detained in prison 13 months before his case was investigated, and ho was then released; another man, sentenced to eight months' imprisonment in irons, with hard labour, appealed in the legal manner; his appeal remained unnoticed for a year, when he got eight months' more, or a year more than his original sentence. Sir Charles Napier writes—
  "I have often heard the Greeks remark that Sir Frederick Adam has a sanguinary disposi-

  759
  tion; the idea originated in his unfortunately thinking that to be rigorous is to be vigorous."
  I would also observe that it was not the Collector who recommended the reinstatement of Viziaram Raz; the Collector was Mr. Gardiner, and the person who made this recommendation was Mr. Russell — a Special Commissioner and Agent of the Madras Government. Viziaram Raz was imprisoned in 1832, at the age of 11 years, when he could be guilty of no crime, and remained in close confinement, no one being allowed access to him, till 1869, or for 37 years, when the then Governor of Madras, Lord Napier, set him at liberty to go anywhere South of the River Kristnah. His imprisonment had so benumbed him that he could not immediately take advantage of his liberty; and it was not until the noble Duke behind me (the Duke of Buckingham) was Governor that he proceeded to Madras. In 1879, he succeeded in bringing his case, as a civil action, before the High Court of Madras. The High Court decided against his suit, not chiefly, as the Indian Office now says, but entirely on the ground of the Statute of Limitations. Now, the India Office has not given, nor has it attempted to give, any answer to the question, whether the British Government is morally justified in pleading limitation in answer to a civil suit, when it, the defendant, has, by physical and material impediments, prevented the plaintiff from obtaining access in time to a Court of Law. There are several proofs of Viziaram Raz having been prevented by Government from bringing his suit in time. The best is the following statement:—
  "15. In conclusion, I am to state that Viziaram Raz appears to have been allowed to sea his relatives and friends, and to communicate through the officers of Government with those at a distance. But, in 1859, a letter from a Vakeel at Madras, urging him to employ the writer's services, with a view to his release and restoration to his inheritance being effected, was intercepted and, forwarded to Government, who directed that the same course should be followed with any similar communications."
  This statement is contained in a letter to the Secretary to the Government of India, dated July 18, 1878, and signed by Mr. C. G. Master, Secretary to the Government. Similar evidence by an eye-witness, in 1859, was given by one who wrote to The Madras Athenæum, on 21st Juno, 1876, signed "Mofussilite." I further ask the noble Earl the Secre-
  760
  tary of State for India how the Indian Government can plead the Statute of Limitations, when that Government has removed officers from the Indian Army for that fault? Captain H. Chichele Plowden, of the Bengal Staff Corps, was sued in a Court in India. He pleaded limitation, and gained his case; but the Government of India said it was a dishonourable plea, and removed him (notwithstanding his great interest) from the Service. The India Office also, at present, alleges that this case was carefully gone into by the Indian Government on its merits; and that it decided, under the advice of their Advocate General, that the rebellious Zemindar was the rightful heir and legal possessor of the estate. This advice of the Advocate General, Mr. Paul, is directly opposed to the judgment of the High Court of Madras of 1879, and also to a judicial decree of Mr. Smollett, Agent to the Governor of Fort St. George (Pro. No. 41 of 1855), in which he decided against the claim to a Zemindary of an illegitimate elder son, and dismissed a reference to the action of the Collector in the Palconda case, as not an authoritative case, and said that—
  "On the contrary, it was doubtful if such a proceeding would have been upheld in Courts of Law."
  The Supreme Government have also alleged, in a despatch to the Secretary of State, dated November 7, 1878, as an objection to restoring the Zemindary, that new rights have grown up—
  "And would, doubtless, be seriously affected if the estate should be restored."
  This is a purely gratuitous supposition. The Zemindary is now vested in the Government, which has preserved all the rights of the owner, which have not been affected, arid would not affect, rights of sub-tenants. I might here mention that, between March of 1876 and May of 1879, the English Press in India incessantly urged that justice should be done to this unfortunate victim of Sir Frederick Adam. I have here no less than 25 articles taken from the most influential Indian papers; but, as far as I know, none of these were reproduced in England. In the generality of cases of resumption or confiscation of Zemindaries or small States, a plea has been put forward that such a proceeding was for the benefit of the inhabitants. How does it

  761
  happen, then, in this case that the Zemindary of Palconda, originally administered by a Collector, acting for the British Court of Wards, was subsequently, in 1846, farmed to the commercial firm of Messrs. Arbuthnot, and the rent raised from 110,000 rupees to 120,000 rupees in 1861, and to 130,000 rupees in 1871? I will now ask leave to read to your Lordships a letter from Lord Napier, dated Isle of Skye, May 12, written to me for that purpose, as, on account of his duties with the Royal Commission in the Highlands, he is unavoidably absent from the House. His letter is such that I might have dispensed with the statement I have already made, but that such a course might not have been respectful to the House, and would, perhaps, not have done justice to Viziaram Raz. I need not read the first part of the letter, in which, explaining the delay in sending it, Lord Napier confesses to reluctance to renew the perusal of these old injustices and miseries. He proceeds to write—
  "…… Passing over the features in the case to which I have referred above, and in respect to which I cannot form a definite judgment, I feel myself at liberty to make the following statement of opinion to you:—

  '1. Viziaramarazu was long subjected to unnecessary restraint in the Fort of Vellore. He might have been liberated, with perfect safety to Government, at a much earlier period, with permission to reside in any part of the country not contiguous to the old estate of his family.

  '2. No proper provision was made for his education and training; his natural faculties were probably not strong; but little or nothing was done to improve them; and it may, perhaps, be in some degree owing to the neglect of Government that he has fallen into that state of debility or imbecility which is spoken of in the Memorial. I am bound to say, however, that when I saw him he was not imbecile or idiotic, but simply a weak, careless gentleman, incapable of governing his own actions wisely.

  '3. The allowance made by Government to Viziaramarazu, before 1869, was a penurious one, and not commensurate to his rank and position.

  '4. The imprisonment of Viziaramarazu at Veller, and the mean condition in which he was kept, debarred him practically from marriage with a lady of his own caste and country, until he was more than 40 years of age, which, in a social and religious point of view, was a more grievous disability and hardship in India than it would be in Europe.

  '5. The provision now made for Viziaramarazu s still incommensurate to his wants, as the representative of an ancient and honourable family; deprived of its possessions, practically, as a measure of policy by the Government.'

  762
  "I consider that the Government would do well to increase the pension of the present holder, to allot a special sum for the maintenance and education of his adopted son, and to appoint some English functionary to superintend his training, apart from his family. It would also be worthy of Government, if the boy promises well, to make some provision for him, beyond that of a mere pensioner, by the creation of a Zemindary for him in the Northern Districts, either near the old estate, or from a portion of it. There is no condition of life more melancholy and hopeless than that of a hereditary State pensioner in India, without honour, duty, power, or any other element of a useful life.
  "On a review of these Papers, I must confess that I reproach myself with not having gone more deeply into the case when it lay in my power to do so; and you have my sympathy and best wishes in your endeavours to procure a more liberal treatment for this unfortunate family by your intervention, either in the House of Lords, or at the India Office.
  "Believe me,
  "Very truly yours,
  "NAPIER AND ETTRICK."
  "P.S.—You are at liberty to make use of my opinion in any way which you may think right."
  It remains to be observed that the cost of the fullest restitution would have been under £5,000 a-year; or, in other words, that the benefit derived by the Government Revenue from this act of confiscation has been less than £5,000 a-year. But Viziaramarazu has not asked for so much at the hands of the Government. In his Memorial of June 4, 1879, he wrote—
  "If the Government are unwilling to see justice done to me on financial grounds, I would be happy to accept my estates at such Peiskesh as the Government may deem reasonable; or, if the Government consider that my long imprisonment incapacitated me from managing my estates, trustees might be appointed on their behalf, or a guarantee from me for good conduct and management be taken."
  The only plea that is likely to be urged against doing justice to Viziaram Raz is, that the injury done to him happened a long time ago, and that the Secretary of State is not responsible for it. But the injury done to him has been continuous; for 37 years he was shut out from the world, and could not make his voice heard; since then, he has done his best to claim redress; and there has been no solution of continuity in doing him injury; for, last year, when he sent a Memorial to the Marquess of Hartington to the actual Governor of Madras for transmission, an evasive and misleading answer was written to him, and it was

  763
  not till seven months later that he was informed that his Memorial could not be transmitted; the Private Secretary's letter, dated July 12, 1882, informed him, by order of the Governor, that his Memorial "had been transferred to the Chief Secretary to the Government for disposal." This letter took me in also, for how could I suppose that "disposal" meant putting it into the waste paper basket? This Memorial ought not to have been kept back, but should have been transmitted to the Marquess of Hartington, for it contained the hearing before the High Court of Madras, which was all new matter. It was unnecessary cruelty to keep Viziaram Raz for seven months in suspense, and to waste all that time, when he, at the age at which he had arrived, had but such a short time before him. The Secretary of State, now that this injustice has been laid before him, will, if he does not redress it, be as responsible for it as those who originally did the wrong.
  Moved, "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the case of the ex-Zemindar of Palconda and the confiscation of his property at a time when he was a ward of the British Court of Wards."—(The Lord Stanley of Aldertey.)
  THE DUKE or BUCKINGHAMsaid, that he had been referred to by the noble Lord as having been Governor of Madras during a portion of the time when the circumstances of the case arose. The statements with regard to the fact of the imprisonment were, unfortunately, too true. There was no doubt that the Zemindar was imprisoned as a boy until ho was partially released in 1869 by Lord Napier. It was not necessary that he should refer to the facts that led to the imprisonment of the Zemindar, or the manner in which he was detained; but he had appealed to the Government of the Presidency of Madras, and subsequently to the Courts of Law, and now his case was brought before that House. It was his misfortune that he had been unsuccessful in every step ho had taken—whether rightly or wrongly was a question which he did not suggest that their Lordships should discuss. As far as he could ascertain, what was done originally was done as an act of State—so he and his Predecessor understood and believed. He said that in the hearing of the case the matter had been argued in a differ-
  764
  ent form, the assertion that the imprisonment was an act of State having been abandoned by the counsel for the Government. One, perhaps unavoidable, misfortune to which the Zemindar had been exposed was that the counsel who advised him to take proceedings was soon afterwards appointed Advocate General to the Government; and this learned gentleman argued the case before the Judges in opposition to the advice he himself had given. It was to be regretted that it was not found possible to obtain some other counsel to represent the Crown, rather than that it should be suggested, in a caso in which a Native was so largely interested, that his cause had been prejudiced by the Government depriving him of his counsel. Those who had investigated the case felt that a more liberal allowance might be accorded to this poor man, so as to put him in a position of some comfort for the few remaining years of his life. The case, which was filed in 1870, was not disposed of by the High Court before he left Madras. He understood that a decision had since been given by the three Judges of the High Court; and their decision was final, as the time for an appeal in the ordinary course had passed by. The possibility of further litigation being thus at an end, he thought it would be a graceful act on the part of the Indian Government, at the suggestion of the Secretary of State, to make a much more liberal allowance to this poor man. As no other person existed in India who had been imprisoned for a long period under similar circumstances, there could be no fear of establishing a dangerous precedent, even if a much larger sum were awarded to him.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, that this matter had been the subject of a decision in a Court of Law, and the judgment had been recorded at great length in the proceedings of the High Court of Madras, and the facts were all given there in the most authentic form. The case arose out of the confiscation of the Zomindary of Palconda in 1832. The circumstances wore rather peculiar, because the previous Zemindar of Palconda, before the confiscation took place, was stated in the judgment to have left behind him, when he died, eight ladies who were styled his widows, although with some of them ho bad not gone

  765
  through the ceremony of marriage. These eight ladies had a quarrel as to who was the proper heir to the Zemindary. The eldest son was illegitimate, and the second son, to whom the noble Lord referred, was legitimate. There were, however, some Zemindaries in India to which illegitimate sons had a right to succeed. The Government appeared to have satisfied themselves that the widows had made up their quarrel, and had agreed that the illegitimate eldest son should succeed to the Zemindary. He succeeded accordingly but disturbances arose, and eventually the Government confiscated the whole Zemindary; and the family, who were stated to have taken part in the disturbances against the Government, were imprisoned. This occurred as long ago as the year 1832. The present Memorialist, who was the second son, alleged that he ought not to have been ousted from what he conceived to be his rights. He was imprisoned, when a boy 11 years old, with the rest of his family. Finally, ho brought an action in the High Court of Madras. That Court expressed a doubt as to whether the Zemindary was one to which an illegitimate son might succeed; but that point was not before the Judges, and they did not give a judgment upon it. They did decide, however, that the Government was not a trustee in the sense alleged by the Petitioner, and that the lapse of time had entirely ousted the Petitioner from any right to obtain a restitution of the Zemindary which he claimed. Moreover, the Court distinctly expressed an opinion that the plaintiff had not been debarred by his detention in prison from bringing his case before them. It was a very difficult thing for the Government to deal with a question of that kind, which was upwards of 50 years old, and the evidence with regard to which was now, from the lapse of time, of an extremely uncertain character. The Government of Madras, in 1832, on account of the very serious disturb. ances, was obliged to employ troops to a large extent. Sir Thomas Monro had been referred to. What he had laid down was this—that when there were rebellions in these Zemindaries the Government could not, when confiscating the Zemindary in the person of the Zemindar, restore it to another member of the family. There were ob-
  766
  vious reasons why, if one of a family rebelled, it would be a very serious matter to restore the Zemindary to another member of the same family. The only other question was that which the noble Duke had brought forward —namely, the amount of the allowance made to the ex-Zemindar. The amount had been increased by the late Viceroy, Lord Lytton, to 250 rupees a-month. He (the Earl of Kimberley) could not then say whether the amount ought to be increased, as the question had not been brought before him, and it was a matter which would require consideration. He could not accede to tho noble Lord's Motion.
  VISCOUNT CRANBROOKsaid, that the ex-Zemindar had been a prisoner for 37 years, from 1832 to 1869, and had since 1869 been a State prisoner, although he had not himself committed any offence against the Government, but merely for belonging to his own family. He trusted, therefore, that the Government of India would deal with this unfortunate man in a more liberal spirit than they had hitherto shown to him.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, that the noble Earl the Secretary of State for India had said nothing in his reply as to the unmerited injustice and cruelty of the life-long imprisonment of Viziaram Raz. This injustice and its continuance could not be explained, except that as India was the country of metempsychosis, it must be supposed that the souls of those who induced Clive to tarnish the laurels of Plassy by his deception of Omichund the banker, by a false copy of a Treaty, and who induced Admiral Watson to allow his name to be forged, though he would not sign it himself, had transmigrated into some of the present Rulers of India.
  On Question? Resolved in the negative.

CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
(The Rail of Dalhousie.)
CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT BILL.

  (No. 69.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE EARL OF DALHOUSIE, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, the Bill was founded upon the recommendations of the Select Committee of their Lordships' House.

  767
  It had come to the knowledge of the Government that English girls had been decoyed abroad, and that they had been immured in brothels, from which they were unable to make their escape. Some passed many years in confinement of the vilest and most abominable kind. The Committee found that many of these girls had been decoyed abroad, especially to Belgium, whither they had been conveyed by agents, who were paid so much a head for each girl by the keeper of the brothel to whom she was made over. The Belgian law protected girls up to the age of 21 from being immorally employed; but that protection was not available for English girls. The age to which English law protected young girls stopped at 13. The Committee also found that juvenile prostitution was increasing at an appalling rate in London, and that probably it existed to a greater extent in this country than in any country in Europe. Now, the Bill before the House closely adopted the recommendations of the Select Committee, with two exceptions. It was not a Bill for the suppression of vice, though it was hoped that it would incidentally bring about some diminution in vice. It was chiefly directed against the empleyment as prostitutes of very young children. It provided that any person who procured, or endeavoured to procure, a woman to become a common prostitute was to be guilty of a misdemeanour; and the age up to which women were in future to be protected was raised from 13 to 16, and up to that age no consent of the woman was to avail. The Bill also contained clauses against brothels, and gave the police power to take the initiative for their suppression, and also power to search houses which there was any reasonable ground of suspecting to be brothels; and made it an offence punishable by a. fine of £20 to keep a brothel. A landlord also was empowered to terminate a tenancy summarily if he found that his house was being used as a brothel. There was also a clause against loitering and solicitation by women in the streets. The Committee had recommended that it should be made a criminal offence to abduct a woman under the age of 21; but Her Majesty's Government had not thought it desirable, for obvious reasons, to insert a clause in this Bill to carry out that recommendation. If that re-
  768
  commendation were adopted, and a man took a girl away from her home and married her, he would be liable for an offence under this Act. Moreover, when they considered what frequently happened, and was, indeed, almost a custom among the labouring population in many of the agricultural districts, it was clear that this recommendation would, in practice, be found unworkable. Many persons would, no doubt, think that this Bill did not go far enough, while others would think that it went too far. The extent to which the measure should go bad received the most anxious consideration on the part of Her Majesty's Government, and they had been most careful not to go beyond public opinion in the matter, because they felt that if they did so the Bill would become a dead letter. Public opinion, however, was advancing very rapidly with regard to this subject; and, before long, it would be possible to go a good deal further in legislation than this measure proposed to go. At present it was a question of degree. By Clause 6 of the Bill it was proposed to raise the age of valid consent from 12 to 16 years. The Select Committee had not been unanimous on this point. Some of its Members had been in favour of raising the age as high as 17. On the whole, the measure was a considerable advance upon the present law; and, though it might very possibly be susceptible of improvement, still it was a measure which he thought fairly and honestly met the necessities of the case. It might, of course, be urged that the Bill would open the door to extortion, to false accusation, and to many incidental evils. But the House must remember that all legislation of this kind was necessarily liable to abuse. The present state of things in the Metropolis was so awful and so disgraceful that it was absolutely necessary to deal with it. That was the justification of this measure; and he hoped that their Lordships would read the Bill a second time.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl of Dalhousie.)
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWN, in moving that the Bill be read a second time that day six months, said, the measure was essentially a bad one, and, if carried, would be used for purposes of extortion. There had been gross carelessness in

  769
  its drafting, and its operation would expose the public generally to great danger. Rather than attempt to amend the Bill in Committee, he thought the better course would be to reject it altogether, and allow the Government to bring in an adequate and efficient measure. He might call the attention of their Lordships to the fact that the Bill was not to apply to Scotland, although the most enthusiastic Scotchman would not deny that immorality was as rampant North of the Tweed as it was South. In fact, the rate of illegitimacy was notoriously high for Scotland; and the only explanation he could give of the provision that the Bill should not relate to that country was that the noble Earl (the Earl of Rosebery), who had charge of the Bill originally, and who had been appointed for a time to look after Scotch affairs, in order to soothe the susceptibilities of Scotch Members, had known that it was a bad measure, and had, therefore, conic to the conclusion that, though it might pass for England, it would not do for his own country. In his (the Earl of Milltown's) opinion, the Bill would be utterly un·workable. Clauses 3 and 4 were too drastic in their provisions. Clause 5 he regarded as unnecessary, because it was already part of the law. Clauses 6 and 7 he also generally condemned; while the 8th clause he approved of as a very proper proposition. It seemed to him as if the noble Earl (the Earl of Dalhousie), flushed with his victory on the Deceased Wife's Sister Bill, had, in dealing with this subject, rushed in where the wisest of men had ever feared to tread. As to the scandalous state of the London streets, he agreed that anything that could be done to mitigate it ought to meet with support; but why should not solicitation be made an offence in the case of men as well as in the case of women? While there were many provisions in the Bill to which he objected, there were, on the other hand, some matters which might have been introduced into it with great advantage. For example, it would be well to exact that damages could be recovered for seduction without its being necessary to prove loss of services. Some of the clauses of the Bill were too far-reaching and severe, and others were too mild. The course which the framers of the measure proposed should be followed
  770
  after the detention of a girl was much too vague and undefined. It was suggested that they should be sent to homes; but no machinery was provided for the establishment of such institutions. For the reasons which he had given, he begged to move the Amendment of which he had given Notice.
  Amendment moved, to leave out (" now ") and add at the end of the Motion (" this day six months.") —(The Earl of Milltown.)
  THE ARCHBISHOP or YORKsaid, that the noble Earl who moved the rejection of the Bill had underrated the weight of public opinion in the country on this subject. The Society for the promotion of this Bill had received 100,000 signatures without. any canvassing whatsoever. There was a strong public opinion on the question; to that opinion the Bill was an answer, and a wise answer, on the part of the Government, and ought not to be met by a Motion that it be read a second time that day six months. It struck him that with regard to certain details, as, for instance, with respect to young persons under 16, the Bill did not go far enough; but that was a matter for Committee. And if the House wished that the Bill should apply to Scotland, it was only necessary to insert words to that effect. He denied that the vice in question was a constant quantity, and that if stopped in one direction it would break out in another. He knew a great deal about the lives of University men, and he ventured to say that a great many passed through the ordeal of University life and were entirely guiltless in this matter. He made that statement after full inquiry. The amount of the evil depended very much on the amount of the temptation. If they allowed the streets of London to continue in their present disgraceful state, there would be a great amount of temptation, and a number of persons good and bad would fall under it. The condition of the streets of this Metropolis was a by-word in the civilized world. There was no other capital in Europe where it was permitted that young men and old men, too, should be solicited as they were here by people whose calling was visible on their faces. That was felt on both sides of the House and out-of-doors, and the wonder was that it had not been stopped. In this Bill there was a clause

  771
  that would go far to stop it. He would suggest that the task of the police in clearing the streets should not be made more difficult by requiring that they should discover the woman in the act of soliciting. It was said that it would be impossible to send young children taken from the streets to industrial homes, because there were not homes enough of that class, and that the Government did not at present desire to take the duty of providing thorn on their hands. He begged to say that there were many Societies forming with that object, and there would be no difficulty in the matter. With regard to juvenile prostitution, he believed that the Bill would entirely stop one of the most monstrous evils that existed among us. We had this excuse for not dealing with it before, that it was only within the last few years that the evil had reached its present monstrous height. It was not the case that the Bill would allow disorderly houses to escape altogether. The Act of George II. enabled a good deal to be done already. He remembered how, in the parish of Marylebone, took or three gentlemen took up the task of dealing with a street full of disorderly houses, and before a year bad passed there was not a single bad house in the street. This Bill would greatly strengthen the hands of those who wished to act in that way. Ho would ask their Lordships to consider for a moment that in our great towns a very melancholy state of things existed. There were whole districts in which women lived by daily labour, making matches and match-cases and sewing shirts for a few pence a-dozen, and many of them retained their chastity. At present they saw passing their doors in gaudy dress their sisters and friends who had adopted a different trade, and other women still more depraved. He would ask, would not their Lordships, who were full of generous impulses, do something to protect these poor people? Speaking not only as a minister of religion, but also as one interested in social science, he was sure that the Government had never undertaken any better work than this; and he begged the House not to commit the solecism of dividing against a Bill the principle of which was apparently accepted by everyone.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that he could have quite understood the opposition of the noble Earl (the Earl of Mill-
  772
  town) if he had objected to the principle of the Bill; but the noble Earl, so far from taking that view of the matter, held that the evils which the Bill was intended to suppress or to mitigate were so serious as to call for even more drastic legislation than was now proposed. Never before had he known the second reading of a Bill to be opposed in such circumstances, and he greatly regretted that the example of such a Motion should have been set by the noble Earl. As it seemed to him, some of the noble Earl's criticisms were trivial, and others were based on a misconception of the Bill. The noble Earl objected to the 1st clause because it did not contain a limit of age, and to the next clause for a precisely opposite reason. The 1st clause was intended to sustain and fortify a very wholesome decision of the late Mr. Russell Gurney, and the next was no more than an extension of the existing law. Without going through all the noble Earl's comments on the Bill, he might say that it was very doubtful whether many of them were just. The noble Earl had failed to see in what way the Bill would effect the suppression of brothels. As the most rev. Prelate had said, the present law did something in that direction; but its machinery was inconvenient, and it laid upon the householders a duty that was sometimes very vexatious, but could not be performed by the police. The main change that the Bill would introduce in this particular was that the police would now, for the first time, be enabled to deal with that class of offences against public morals and decency. He was bound to say that the noble Earl's criticisms did not appear to him to present many serious difficulties; but, even if they had been much more powerful, they might have been considered in Committee, and could not have formed an argument against the second reading of the Bill.
  THE BISHOP OF PETERBOROUGHsaid, that the Bill was not designed to accomplish what he feared was the impossible task of suppressing prostitution, but to afford protection to young girls who were constantly inveigled into dens of infamy, and to give larger powers of protection to householders and the police. There was the Act of George II. which was directed against brothels, gaming-houses, and other disorderly houses, and was very well as far as it went; but it

  773
  needed amendment, and would probably be made much more efficient by this Bill. Bad as disorderly houses were in all circumstances, they became additionally infamous when they were kept by women who added to their other trade the business of the procurers. In the City of Peterborough, he grieved to say, there was one of these vile women who got her bread out of the sin and shame of the innocent young girls whom she seduced into these homes. A poor artizan in the town of Peterborough went to one of the clergymen to complain that his young daughter had been inveigled by this woman into her house. It was found that the father had no legal right to enter the house. But if the woman had stolen his spoons, the house might have been entered for them; but because she had taken what was dearer to him, the child of his heart, the peace of his home, and the honour of his family, he must not be allowed by the English law to enter this house. It was because of such a case as that, which wrung the hearts of those who knew of it, that he gave his attention to the law on this subject, and listened with the greatest amazement to a proposition from any Member of that House for the rejection of the Bill altogether. To amend it in Committee would be another matter. There was a growing public opinion on these questions that would largely amaze the noble Earl. There was no question that this, at all events, was a poor man's Bill—a Bill to protect him from being robbed by cunning and fraud of that which was dearest to him, to satisfy the lusts of the vicious among the rich. He heartily thanked Her Majesty's Government for having introduced this measure, as it deserved the hearty support of all those who cared for the peace of families and the purity of our national life. It was not a time for anyone, when child harlots were walking in our streets, to stand up in that House and to move the rejection of such a Bill.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, in spite of the speeches of my right rev. Friend and of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, I am not sure that the Bill has passed entirely scatheless through the criticisms of my noble Friend behind me. His examination of the Bill was a careful and exhaustive one, and he pointed out many
  774
  defects in it which at a future stage it will be necessary for us to consider. It would be a great mistake to pass by such criticisms. The subject is one as to which all must feel the gravest responsibility. It is a most difficult subject to deal with by legislation. The ordinary duty of the law is to restrain crime; but we are dealing with questions of a different kind—we are crossing the boundary which separates crime from vice, and are trying in some way or other to deal with vice. The attempt is not new to our law, but it has always been made carefully and tentatively, and with a deep sense of the dangers surrounding it. There is the danger of re-action, and there is the danger lest, in the attempt to fetter the vicious and the guilty, you cause dishonour and damage to the innocent. There is also the danger that even when you punish those who are vicious, you may punish them beyond measure by exposing them to a terrible system of extortion. I do not admit, therefore, that the matter is quite so plain and simple as my right rev. Friend who has just sat down seemed to imagine, or that it can be disposed of by the mere consideration of the terrible evils with which we have to deal. When right rev. Prelates talk of public opinion they should remember what is the precise public opinion with which practically we have to deal. The public opinion represented by eager petitioners is not the kind of public opinion which must execute the Act you are now asked to pass. You must pass an Act which the public opinion represented by 12 average jurymen put into a box is prepared to enforce. If your measure is so severe that such public opinion will not enforce it you will do more harm than good. I should have preferred to have this Bill considered by a Select Committee, because it is almost impossible in public to go into the details which are necessary for a complete consideration of the Bill. Of course, that is entirely a matter for the Government to decide. The circumstance that the Bill in a great part embodies the recommendations of a Committee of this House is, I think, a reason against rejecting it. There are, no doubt, very great and terrible evils to be dealt with, and the attempt to prevent this fearful injury to young girls is one with which we must all deeply sympathize.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I am very glad that the noble Marquess deprecates the idea of rejecting the Bill on the second reading. The noble Marquess desires, however, to refer it to a Select Committee; and I think the nature of the Bill will make it a fit subject to be examined by such a Committee. But it should be remembered that this was not a measure framed in a Department of the Government, without any outward assistance being given; it was prepared by a skilful draftsman, of whom the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack speaks highly, and it is based on the recommendations of a Select Committee of this House.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Not entirely.
  EARL GRANVILLE: At any rate, with the omission of only two recommendations. The object of the Government is to get the Bill passed if possible; but I reserve to the Government the right to decide whether it is desirable to consider the matter in a Committee of the House, or in a Select Committee.
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWNsaid, that, after the observations of the noble Marquess (tile Marquess of Salisbury), he would not divide the House on his Amendment.
  Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn; original Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

  INDIAN MARINE BILL.—(No. 88.)
  (The Earl of Kimberley.)
  INDIAN MARINE BILL.—(No. 88.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
    THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, the Bombay Marine were converted into an Indian Navy in 1829. In 1862 that Navy was abolished, and the Act which had been passed for the discipline and regulation of the Force was abolished. There had long existed a Bengal Marine, which served in certain of our wars in the neighbourhood of India; but there was no special law under which that Marine was regulated. Since the abolition of the Indian Navy, the Indian Marine Force had continued to exist; but the ships of which it was
    776
    composed did not come either under the Merchant Shipping Act or under the Mutiny Act. The Bill gave the Governor General for the first time power to legislate with respect to vessels between the limits of the Straits of Magellan on the one side and the Cape id Good Hope on the other. The limits might appear to be rather wide; but it was thought advisable to err on that side rather than on the other in a question of jurisdiction over the sea. If vessels were used for purposes of war, of course they would come within the jurisdiction of the Admiralty, and not under that Act. The Bill was not one for extending the Marine Force, or creating a new Indian Marine. It was simply a disciplinary measure. The noble Earl concluded by moving the second reading of the Bill.
    Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a." —(The Earl of Kimberley.)
    LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, that the ground of his objection to the Bill was the excessive limits of the proposed jurisdiction, which had made the Bill to seem as if intended to revive the Indian Navy; this his noble Friend had now stated was not intended. But the waters described in the Bill as Indian waters would include, besides the whole of the Indian Ocean, the North and South Pacific, and they might as well add the Atlantic, which was comparatively a small piece of water. The reason this was not done was because the Admiralty feared a conflict of jurisdiction; but this objection might arise equally in the Pacific Ocean. He begged leave, however, to withdraw his Motion for the rejection of the Bill.
    In answer to Viscount SIDMOUTH,
    THE EARL OF NORTHBROOKsaid, that no arrangement was made in the Bill as to the status of the officers of the ships which would come under the Bill in case war should arise.
    Motion agreed to; Bill road 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.
    House adjourned at a quarter past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.